Green New Deal

[nwdiver]

I think taking 40% of wealth from the super-rich at death is enough.

Obviously not....

 

[S'toon]

I think taking 40% of wealth from the super-rich at death is enough.

It's not the dead people getting taxed first of all, it's the people inheriting the wealth, as it's income to them. Secondly, very few people actually pay the estate tax.

 

[ohmman]

I think taking 40% of wealth from the super-rich at death is enough.

I disagree. I think it should almost all be forfeited and don’t understand why those on the right don't agree. After all, their core values are that hard work is rewarded. Inheritance should be anathema to them. People already inherit citizenship by the random chance of being born here, they should also get wealth they did nothing to "earn"? Steep estate taxes present an opportunity to be a great equalizer.

 

[juliusa]

I disagree. I think it should almost all be forfeited

Then the government would get nothing from death taxes, and would get less from income taxes from the next generation.

If government gets 100%, then it would all be spent or given away so the government would get 100% of nothing. And the 60% that is currently passed on to the next generation generates income tax to the government, and 30 years later or whenever the next generation dies the government gets 40% again. Getting 40% every generation seems like enough to me.

 

[juliusa]

It's not the dead people getting taxed first of all, it's the people inheriting the wealth, as it's income to them. Secondly, very few people actually pay the estate tax.

Did Robert Reich even go to college? It is a death tax paid by the estate. It is not income to the beneficiaries, and they do not pay income tax on it. Find an economist to quote.

 

[juliusa]

Obviously not....

View attachment 401271

We are talking US policy, not wealth distribtion in the world. Here is it for the US.
Trends in Family Wealth, 1989 to 2013 | Congressional Budget Office

While the rich have a higher concentration of wealth, it is not because they took it from everyone else. The wealth of the rich has increased while the wealth of everyone else has increased at a lower rate.

 

[ohmman]

Then the government would get nothing from death taxes, and would get less from income taxes from the next generation.

If government gets 100%, then it would all be spent or given away so the government would get 100% of nothing. And the 60% that is currently passed on to the next generation generates income tax to the government, and 30 years later or whenever the next generation dies the government gets 40% again. Getting 40% every generation seems like enough to me.

That’s not how the economy works. Money is taxed when it changes hands. Do you think the government just puts it in a mattress when they tax us? No, that money re-enters the economy. And remember that wealth continues to be created. If I’m missing some kind of zero sum estate tax thing, please educate me because it sounds a little nuts from where I stand.

 

[nwdiver]

While the rich have a higher concentration of wealth, it is not because they took it from everyone else. The wealth of the rich has increased while the wealth of everyone else has increased at a lower rate.

You can't even call it increasing.... the purchasing power of the people that actually make a living working instead of living off the good fortune of their parents has declined when it comes to stuff like health care, real estate and college. Their wages have not kept pace with the rising cost of these.

This disparity is accelerating and only getting worse as automation becomes more prevalent. Increasingly the only real way to have an income is to have wealth. This is obviously unsustainable. What's your plan to avoid disaster?

 

[juliusa]

Money is taxed when it changes hands.

If they spent the money it is not taxed.
If they give the rest to charity, it is not taxed.

40% tax: Buffet gives everything to charity except $10B. Heirs get $6B and government gets $4B.
100% tax: Buffet does the same thing, and government gets $10B. Instead, Buffet gives it all to charity. Government gets nothing.

By the way, Buffet gives it to the Gates Foundation, which distributes a lot (almost all?) outside the country.

 

[juliusa]

You can't even call it increasing.... the purchasing power of the people that actually make a living working instead of living off the efforts of their parents has declined when it comes to stuff like health care, real estate and college. Their wages have not kept pace with the rising cost of these.

Are you talking income or wealth? Looks like the wealth has increased, just not as fast as the wealth of the rich.

 

[nwdiver]

If they spent the money it is not taxed.
If they give the rest to charity, it is not taxed.

???? When $$$ is spent that's income for someone.... it's taxed. When $$$ is given to charity that's income for someone... it's taxed...

Are you talking income or wealth? Looks like the wealth has increased, just not as fast as the wealth of the rich.

Both. Are you really denying that inequality is getting exponentially worse? Are you seriously blind to this problem? What's your solution?

 

[juliusa]

???? When $$$ is spent that's income for someone.... it's taxed. When $$$ is given to charity that's income for someone... it's taxed...

I think the bulk of the Gates Foundation goes overseas. Not spent and taxed in the US.

When they buy a $250M yacht, do you think they pay sales tax? The yacht is built, registered, and operated as a corporation outside the US. Captain and crew are not US citizens and pay no US tax.

 

[nwdiver]

I think the bulk of the Gates Foundation goes overseas. Not spent and taxed in the US.

When they buy a $250M yacht, do you think they pay sales tax? The yacht is built, registered, and operated as a corporation outside the US. Captain and crew are not US citizens and pay no US tax.

LOL.... what percentage do you think is donated overseas? Of the $$$ that is I'm sure the CDC is happy someone else is eliminating Malaria.... saves them $$$.

Who builds the yacht? They pay taxes... when money moves taxes are paid...

Are you really denying that inequality is getting exponentially worse? Are you seriously blind to this problem? What's your solution?

 

[juliusa]

LOL.... what percentage do you think is donated overseas? Of the $$$ that is I'm sure the CDC is happy someone else is eliminating Malaria.... saves them $$$.

Who builds the yacht? They pay taxes... when money moves taxes are paid...

Are you really denying that inequality is getting exponentially worse? Are you seriously blind to this problem? What's your solution?

High US taxes drive US wealth to other countries. The higher the taxes, the more wealth leaves the country.

Wealth leaving the country will reduce income equality. But reducing the wealth of the super rich will do nothing to increase the wealth of anyone else.

The only thing that will accomplish that is income redistribution (take the earnings of one person and give it to another) and/or wealth redistribution (take the property of one person and give it to another).

 

[ohmman]

If they spent the money it is not taxed.
If they give the rest to charity, it is not taxed.

40% tax: Buffet gives everything to charity except $10B. Heirs get $6B and government gets $4B.
100% tax: Buffet does the same thing, and government gets $10B. Instead, Buffet gives it all to charity. Government gets nothing.

By the way, Buffet gives it to the Gates Foundation, which distributes a lot (almost all?) outside the country.

Correct, the giving exclusion needs to be removed at death. It is already limited to 20%/30% of annual income depending on the destination. But calculating tax income is done by following the dollar itself, not the owner. What Buffett or his heirs pay is irrelevant. How many times that dollar can be taxed in the economy is how to measure the government’s return on it. So saying that’s they only get it once is not true since it will become part of the economy, where it will be taxed over and over again.

Also, while I’m removing tax exclusions and deductions, churches of any kind shouldn’t have an exemption, either.

 

[nwdiver]

The only thing that will accomplish that is income redistribution (take the earnings of one person and give it to another) and/or wealth redistribution (take the property of one person and give it to another).

Or.... Or.... instead of structuring the funding and payment of critical services like college and health care to make the poor poorer and the rich richer you restructure it in a way the rich fund most of the services and the poor pay less for them. Narrowing the gap, increasing purchasing power of a wider economic base and improving the economy all at the same time....

 

[juliusa]

Or.... Or.... instead of structuring the funding and payment of critical services like college and health care to make the poor poorer and the rich richer you restructure it in a way the rich fund most of the services and the poor pay less for them.

That is exactly what I said. Income or wealth re-distribution. Take income or wealth from one person, and give it to another.

 

[nwdiver]

That is exactly what I said. Income or wealth re-distribution. Take income or wealth from one person, and give it to another.

What other option is there?

When the worker:consumer ratio is 1:10,000 because of automation.... what other option is there? The owners of the capital need to return purchasing power to consumers to maintain the consumer base... what other option is there?

Are you really denying that inequality is getting exponentially worse? Are you seriously blind to this problem? What's your solution?

 

[JRP3]

If government gets 100%, then it would all be spent or given away so the government would get 100% of nothing.

So it would go directly back into the economy, great. The problem is wealth hoarding.

 

[juliusa]

So it would go directly back into the economy, great. The problem is wealth hoarding.

Global economy, not the US economy. Not saying that is bad, but it does not help with income or wealth of anyone in the US.